Now that the presentation has been given and the paper is available on the MetaIntegral website, I would like (per theurj's suggestion) to open a thread dedicated to this topic.

An excerpt from the intro:

"In an article advocating for a more verbal, process-oriented reading of Integral Theory, ... Bonnitta Roy (2006) has noted that the first-, second-, and third-person lenses at the center of the Integral model are insufficient, in themselves, to disclose the deeper metaphysical view in and through which first-, second-, or third-person research is pursued and articulated.  In particular, these lenses alone cannot account for the different territories enacted by structural or process-oriented metaphysics.  In contrasting her preferred 'pure process' view with the commonly nounal character of substance metaphysics and structuralist orientations, she emphasizes the need to shift to a more verb-centered language.  We will return to her specific arguments about this later in the chapter, when we are reviewing various verb-oriented metaphysics; for now, I would like only to note that we already have, here, the suggestion of at least three possible grammatical-philosophical approaches: a pronoun-centered perspectival epistemology, a noun-centered metaphysics of things or structures, and a verb-centered metaphysics of processes or events.  But, while Roy (2006) emphasizes that the structural and process views are deeper than the perspectival lenses that comprise the quadrants, and thus are not explicitly disclosed by them, I will argue that all are also related in that each employs and organizes itself around a particular grammatical category or metaphor.

In this chapter, then, I would like to review a number of the major philosophical approaches or metaphysical systems that have developed around each of six basic grammatical categories:  pronouns, nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and prepositions.  As I have already suggested above, these approaches range from various perspectival epistemologies, to substance, process, or relational metaphysics, among others.  When considering these systems alongside one another, we may be led, in integral fashion, to perceive each as true but partial:  as necessarily limited in scope, but still delivering important and irreducible truths.  In this way, I hope to demonstrate the merit of expanding the Integral model beyond its pronoun focus, to enact a broader integrative approach employing multiple grammatical lenses.  But as I will discuss below, each grammatical-philosophical system in itself can also be a site for integral theorizing:  just as the pronouns can be used as a base to construct a broadly integrative model, so can nouns, verbs, or other grammatical elements.  As we will see, both object-oriented (nounal) and process-oriented (verbal) philosophical systems, for instance, have already realized their own integral formulations.  Thus, the six grammatical lenses or philosophemes I will introduce here can be understood from two perspectives at once: collectively, as true-but-partial elements of any comprehensive philosophical system; and individually, as unique, generative centers around which a number of philosophical models and emergent integrative meta-theories have been organized.

With these distinctions in mind, I will introduce two new terms to frame and guide our explorations: onto-choreography and heno-ontology.  I will save fuller discussion of the former term until the end of the paper, when I will review the ground we have covered and will reflect on various integrative meta-theories that have been proposed, but in brief: by onto-choreography, I mean the integrative task of weighting and coordinating the grammatical elements or philosophemes into various metaphysical systems.  How do these ontological elements dance together in the different philosophical models we will consider here?  This question is related also to the second term I have coined, heno-ontology, by which I mean a meta-philosophical approach which allows for metaphysical pluralism, both across stages of development and even at the same level of development.  As in henotheism, where multiple gods are recognized, but only one might be worshipped at a given time as supreme, depending on the circumstance or the proclivities of the devotee, I intend here to evoke an ambiguous field of multiple possible ontologies and integrative lenses, a chthonic matrix with a shifting absolute (which, in each ‘form’ that it manifests, may be seen to enfold in its own way certain of the qualities of the other ‘deities’).  This is not an argument for the full equality of each choice of metaphysical or ontological center, however, or of the integrative models they may support.  Each has its weaknesses as well as strengths, and I will review a number of them in the discussion to come.  But rather than arguing for the ultimate superiority of one metaphysical or integrative model over all others, I prefer to adopt a meta-metaphysical, heno-ontological approach:  a robust, speculative, experimental form of philosophical engagement which does not shy away from, but rather embraces and enacts, metaphysical pluralism."

Views: 701

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My own joking consideration was lingontology, playing on the twin associations of ling: linguistics and the Lingam, of course.

Morphemeralia? Combing morpheme and the last part of ephemeral with the suffix ia to indicate a general category. Morphemigral? We have mesomorphs and endomorphs, why not intemorphs? Integramorph? Morphallus?

Oh, Lingon! It's a kennilingus Klingon! Also see morphallus above.

Balder said:

My own joking consideration was lingontology, playing on the twin associations of ling: linguistics and the Lingam, of course.

Bonnie uses onto-logics for her work.  A variation could be onto-lingustics, onto-grammatics, or onto-morphology

In spite of my "ling" reference (!), I don't want something that is too much of a mouth-ful to be popularly useful and appealing.  So, for instance, the meaning of morphemeralia is nice, but the word itself is a bit of a mouth-ful...

Morphogenetics? It combines morphology with genetics, sort of like the genetic code for morphology. The Lingam has used the term as in the morphogenetic and involutionary gradient, I think borrowing from Sheldrake. But it could be tweaked to indicate your particular meaning.

Hmm, I do like that.  I was thinking about something that would indicate a generative/enactive or creative element.

I thought of the term, onto-linguistics, and Googling it I just found the following, which looks interesting for my project:  Ontolinguistics

Grammontology

Logosophy, Grammosophy, Grammatosophy

Given Integral's use of techological terms, such as operating system (OS), maybe something like Integral GPS (grammitico-philosophical system).

There is a free Google book preview here. I see chapters by Gallese and Talmy, two researchers of embodied cognitive linguistics I mentioned in the other thread.

I like Integral GPS, as it globally positions those systems.

Yes, with these emphases and also its cross-disciplinary scope, I think this book may be helpful for future papers.

For GPS,  alternate meanings:  grammatical philosophy system, grammatical positioning system, global positioning system, global grammatical positioning system, etc.

Joseph,

Anything you would like to make sure gets mentioned in the entries on "archetypes" "stereotypes" "prototypes" etc.?



Joseph Camosy said:

Morphological?

From the Wikki: (emphasis mine)

In linguistics, morphology is the identification, analysis, and description of the structure of a given language's morphemes and other linguistic units, such as root words, affixes, parts of speech, intonations and stresses, or implied context. In contrast, morphological typology is the classification of languages according to their use of morphemes, while lexicology is the study of those words forming a language's wordstock.

I don't see image schema in the wiki, so not sure if you plan to include them. I obviously think they are pivotal for an IPS, given a strong attraction for embodied cognitive linguistics in the forum. And in regard to archetypes, recall Knox's contention that image schema are the modern equivalent of archetypes (like here and a few posts following).

More references can be found by searching for Knox and image schema in the upper right search box.

Layman,

Bring me up to speed here.  "When you write "make sure gets mentioned,"  was this in reference to some document being developed? 

As far as archetypes, etc.. I would instead present these as isomorphic forms that can be found across all domains and which thus can act as a bridge to analogical knowledge.  In other words, through these isomorphic forms, knowledge in one domain can be applied analogically to another domain.

I'm on the verge of "cracking the code" of Lacanian theory using this approach.  In mapping from the Borromean Rings to a topology where SIX is a prominent feature, one innovation is required, and I find Kristeva lends support to my innovation with her concept of "The Semiotic."  Here's a quote from http://www.lacan.com/kristeva.htm (emphasis mine):  "She proposes a "new" semiotics, which she terms semiology or semanalysis, in which meaning is conceived of as a signifying process rather than a sign system. "

Aristotle, Heidegger, Lacan, Wilber, the Parts of Speech, etc.. they all can be mapped isomorphically on to one topology.


Layman Pascal said:

Joseph,

Anything you would like to make sure gets mentioned in the entries on "archetypes" "stereotypes" "prototypes" etc.?



Joseph Camosy said:

Morphological?

From the Wikki: (emphasis mine)

In linguistics, morphology is the identification, analysis, and description of the structure of a given language's morphemes and other linguistic units, such as root words, affixes, parts of speech, intonations and stresses, or implied context. In contrast, morphological typology is the classification of languages according to their use of morphemes, while lexicology is the study of those words forming a language's wordstock.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2021   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service